Archive | December, 2011

Boehner insistence on one year tax-cut; an Opportunity for an Obama redemption; Or, a chance for Obama leadership.

20 Dec

 

Boehner insistence on one year; an Opportunity for Obama redemption!

Extending the “middle class” tax for two months would be a sham effort by Washington that will have to deal with in two months, in the middle of election activities. I seldom agree with Speaker Boehner, but I do now, get a year extension the tax-cut and associated items, allowing you an opportunity to deal with taxes in a more comprehensive way after the 2012 election.

Should Reid and the Senate returns to the negotiation table, as they should, President Obama can give instruction to Reid that will bring back the surtax on millionaires and for a change not capitulate. With that on the table it is not unlikely that the GOP will not feel confident enough to reject it and raise the public ire.

Obama, here is your opportunity, get the tax-tax extended for one year, and bring back the surtax on millionaires. Be a leader Mr. President the nation had enough of your capitulation.

Two-months tax-cut irresponsible! One-year tax-cut offer GOP cannot reject.

20 Dec

Two-months tax-cut  irresponsible!

I seldom agree with Speaker Boehner, but when he is right, he is right. Extending the “tax-cut for the middle class,” for two months will simply postpone the inevitable. If he is successful in rejecting the agreement as passed by the Senate, let us hope that President Obama take the opportunity to pass rational  legislation.

A delay so close to the end of the year could make Obama into a leader. What Obama could do:

Agree to one year agreement.

Insist on surtax on millionaires.

Agree to approve, not just set a date for the Keystone pipeline.

The President can get such package passed by the Senate ASAP, and explain to the House that he sign such package, no changes before year-end to give the middle class it tax-cut; a one time offer, the House will not ne able to pass such deal.

Obama: America’s [Consistent] Capitulator in Chief (C.i.C.)…

17 Dec

Obama’s staff was quick to state that allowing Keystone consideration in the unemployment and tax bill is not “a blink,” even though it really is. It is especially a blink when one realizes that the item of funding via surtax on millionaires is also missing.

It should be considered a blink since in the case of Obama capitulating is the rule, not the exception! It is clearly a capitulation. Obama, America’s Capitulator in Chief (C.i.C.) struck again! Also, where is the surtax on millionaires?

In politicians consistency is generally considered a positive, providing said politician is consistent about good behavior, and good ideas. Consistently giving up on good ideas in order to accomplish necessary, but watered-down actions, may actually not be a desirable means for a politician to function…

President Barak Hussein Obama of the United States is consistent about capitulation to the GOP; is consistency in the case a positive trait?

Iraq withdrawal versus Iran’s growing influence; the drone factor! The effect on Israel’s flight path to Iran…

16 Dec

There are many implications to United States withdrawal from Iraq. Iran, of course, is very pleased. There are many reasons why Iran welcomes the move, not the least of which is the elimination of one flight path from Israel to its nuclear facilities…

If Iran did in indeed use electronic, or electro-magnetic device, in order to guide the American drone to land in Iranian territory, the United States and its [regional] allies has reason for serious concern. The drone incident caught the United States by surprise, and the President did not act in a most prudent manner in dealing with the situation.

United States Middle East policy is inept, it is based on lack of understanding, and it does not include commitment to allies. For example, in spite of Congressional approval, the United States Embassy in Israel has not been moved to Jerusalem, a sore spot with the Israelis. 

The prevailing policy is allowing Iran to increase its influence, its footprint in the region, if you will. So far, in the numerous virtual confrontations Ahmadinejad had with the American Administration, the Iranian seems to have had the upper hand in most, not a situation that makes United States allies comfortable.

The above situation, which is happening while Iran is increasing its presence and influence in Iraq, and as the United States is moving its combat troops out of Iraq, could be a signal for alarming things to come. Before the United States took out Sadam Hussein, the Iraqi dictator was hated by his neighbors, but also respected by the Arab world because he appeared to be able to stand up the United States, the infidel Satan of the West. Ahmadinejad is presently in a similar situation that Sadam Hussein was in before President George W. Bush decided to remove him from power. The major difference is that Barak Hussein Obama is not George W. Bush.

There is little or no doubt that Ahmadinejad and the Iranian Ayatollahs are interested in controlling the Islamic world. The Iranians have two significant issues to resolve: 1. Iranian are not Arabs, they are rather Aryans, not Semites 2. Iran has a majority Shii population while 80% of Muslims are Sunni Since Iraq, a Shii Arab country, is Iran’s close neighbor in whom it (Iran) already has significant economic influence, the drone and US departure from Iraq represent an excellent opportunity to Ahmadinejad.

Timing is also important for Iran because Assad, one of its clients, may well be replaced by a democracy that will reduce Iran’s influence in the Middle East. Since Iran has influence in Lebanon, through Hizbollah (via Syria,) and Gaza, perhaps all of “Palestine,” (via Hamas,) the loss of Syria would be significant, but getting Iraq as a replacement may make up for at least some of the loss.

El Malaki is already in large part in Ahmadinejad’s corner, and under his influence. The fact that Iraq could be in the flight path from Israel to Iran’s nuclear operation, and that the United States will not have control of Iraq’s airspace, as also helpful for Iran’s time-table to Middle East and Muslim world dominance.

The complete withdrawal from Iran, I must agree with Senator McCain, may well be too soon. But what is done is done, and timing may be everything. The timing of downing the drone could also have been to fit some plan that the Iranians hatched.

Syria is still burning; why is US on sidelines:

15 Dec

How can the US stay on the sidelines while the situation in Syria is deteriorating?

While Libya does have a great deal more oil than does Syria, the Syrian population, and movement towards freedom is led by the intelligentsia and a reasonably educated population, while Libia is a tribal nation with no unifying voice, except perhaps, Sharia law.

Why is the United States standing on the Syrian sidelines, when a democratic Syria could be the key to Mid East peace?

America’s Capitulator in Chief (C.i.C) strikes again; time for Obama to leave! Or, Capitulation is tantamount to relinquishing control.

15 Dec

Capitulation is tantamount to relinquishing control.

By capitulating to the opposition one give said opposition beneficial control, in a case of a President, it is tantamount to relinquishing control of the country. Why should a country need such a figurehead, why does the United States need Barak Hussein Obama to occupy the White House?

Giving up on the surtax on millionaires, something that 70% of the public supports, as do most millionaires, is a dereliction of duty, it should be enough to ensure a loss for the President in 2012.

Boehner just made it clear that the surtax on millionaires is out; ‘it was not ever seriously considered,’ by the Republicans. If this turn out to be the case, and President Obama capitulates again, it would appear that the man lost all credibility and clearly should not be re-elected!

The Unites States does not need a Capitulator in Chief (C.i.C,) since such person allows the opposition to dictate policy, why does the country need a President who allows the opposition to dictate the way the country governed?

Does democracy mean 1st amendment be forfieted for political correctness? The case of ex-Speaker Gingrich:

14 Dec

Is Political correctnes­s more important than are first amendment rights? Case in point: Two recent events in the Newt Gingrich campaign.

Newt Gingrich the outspoken ex-Speaker of the House, and vying for the GOP Presidential nomination often is in the middle of firestorms. Two recent issues bring to question the viability of political correctness. The main issue has to do with public opinion especially when the cases in question are during election years.

In an interview, Newt Gingrich suggested that Palestinians are but an invention, that statement came under fire and the ex-Speaker her to defend it on of the GOP debates. The other statement, by a staffer who said that Mormons are cultists, and as the result was made to resign.

Perhaps the fact that a politician must count on public opinion and the votes it represents weighs so heavily on ones action, one could understand why first amendment rights, and often facts must be sacrificed in favor of political correctness, but is that was at the roots of democracy?

When Newt Gingrich defended his true statement about the Palestinians, saying that he was willing to take the heat in favor of the truth, the ex-Speaker demonstrated commendable integrity. When a staffer was made to resign because of making an unpopular statement, the system with its political correctness nature seemed to have won over the simple truth.

The Merriam Webster dictionary gives five sets of meanings to the world ‘cult,’ none are derogatory­, the most “outlandis­h,” perhaps are: Unorthodox­, and spurious. Why should one take offense by having one’s religion referred to as a cult, essentiall­y as being unconventi­onal?

For some strange reason political correctnes­s seems to have trumped out actual meanings of words, it is now de facto interferin­g with first amendment rights of the people.

A Gingrich staffer in Iowa had to resign because he said that Mormonism is a cultist religion; why did he have to resign?

When Newt Gingrich referred to the Palestinia­n people as an invention, a statement based on historical facts, he was criticized and asked to apologize (credit to the ex-Speaker­, he did not apologize, but rather defended his position.)

Why are the American people willing to give up first amendment rights in order to be politicall­y correct? Isn’t it time for Americans to be able to say what they mean and only be constraine­d by facts and reasonably good taste? Or, does democracy mean that in order for people to be elected, political correctness is the rule, even at the cost of shading the truth when politics dictate the rule?